Wong Kwok Tat @ Wong Tat @ Wong Kwok Wah @ Ng Kwok Tat and Another v. The Queen
|
CACC000730/1974 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 730 OF 1974 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 16th October 1974. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. Three men were charged on a total of six charges. They included three charges of blackmail and three of theft. They go in pairs, for what happened was this. These men went on board cargo lighters and made unlawful demands with menaces which were complied with and money was handed over. All three men pleaded Guilty and all were sentenced to a total of nine months' imprisonment, that is to say three months' imprisonment consecutive for each pair of offences. The second and third Accused appealed against their sentences, the present Appellant being the third Accused. The appeal of the second Accused was dismissed at an earlier hearing. 2. The learned magistrate took a serious view of these offences because he noted a disturbing increase in the number of cases involving petty blackmail and he thought that in all the circumstances deterrent sentences were required to curb the number of offences of blackmail on poor working people. 3. The second Defendant had previous convictions. This present Appellant is presently before another court on a charge of burglary and I am given to understand that sentence in that case has been postponed until tomorrow. The first and second Defendants were much older men, being aged 26 and 28 years. This Appellant is only 17. Despite this the learned magistrate felt that he was unable to distinguish in the sentences imposed. I should have mentioned that the first Defendant also had several previous convictions. 4. I felt that there might be a case here for distinguishing between the case of the Appellant and the other two Accused and now have the advantage of a report from the Commissioner of Prisons. That report indicates that the Appellant is not suitable for admission to a detention centre but that he might benefit from a fairly long period of institutional training in a training centre. 5. This is one of those unfortunate cases where the Appellant comes from a good family but for one reason or another has not himself attained to the same standards. Against his parents' wishes he left school before completing his education, although the other members of the family did complete theirs. Having left school the Appellant got into bad company and it cannot be said that this report is very favourable. His character is described as being of the "could-not-care-less" variety. Since leaving school he has not seriously taken up any work. 6. Having regard to the comments of the learned magistrate I am unable to agree that this is a case where any sentence other than a custodial sentence is appropriate. Nevertheless, I do not think the sentence should be the same as that imposed on the other Accused. The appeal will be allowed and there will be substituted an order for detention in a training centre. In view of what has been said to me by the Appellant's counsel, however, I would ask that the Commissioner of Prisons take into account, in deciding how long the Appellant should remain in detention, the fact that he has served part of his term of imprisonment and that the term imposed on the other Accused was one of nine months' imprisonment. 16th October 1974. Representation: |